The 'protect marriage' curtain continues to rip
Earlier this morning, we showed you how the "good Christians" at the Campaign for Children and Families are painting us gay folks as outside the boundaries of what is natural. Well now, just so you don't write this group off as extremists who you shouldn't care about, we want to show you why they are instead extremists that you SHOULD give some mind. Check out this passage:
With their vote under attack by liberal county governments, homosexual activists and the ACLU, many Californians are wondering whether they've lost the right to amend the constitution. The answer is no, according to the constitution itself and the legislative and legal history regarding the difference between an "amendment" and a "revision."
The City of San Francisco alleges Prop. 8 was a constitutional revision requiring two-thirds legislative approval. Yet in July, the California Supreme Court refused to hear these same arguments when the City of San Francisco urged the court to strip Prop. 8 from the ballot. "This summer, the Supreme Court unanimously refused to hear the claim that Proposition 8 was a revision," said [Randy] Thomasson, who is seeking to intervene in the Prop. 8 lawsuits on behalf of the voters. "The Court disagreed that Prop. 8 is 'a substantial alteration of the entire constitution.'"
Okay, so it's another evangelical calling our court battles an "attack." So why should you care? Well, because CCF's Randy Thomasson, the same man who quite unapologetically considers us "unnatural," is seeking to intervene on behalf of California voters. Essentially he is seeking to serve as a surrogate for the majority of the voters who passed Prop 8. He, along with his pals at the Liberty Counsel, think they are suitable stand-ins for the entire "yes on 8" crowd. Somehow we think even a large portion of those who were duped into voting for the measure would be uncomfortable having a dude who considers gays to be "at war with nature" speaking on their behalf! At least we would hope.
But not only is it eyebrow-raising that this extremist would want to speak for the electorate, folks should also find it disconcerting that Randy is demonstrating that he is not at all above unscrupulous lies. Why? Well, because when he says that "The Court disagreed that Prop. 8 is 'a substantial alteration of the entire constitution," he is blatantly lying. The court did not refuse the revision vs. amendment question on its merits. They didn't even take up that question. They decided to let Prop 8 go ahead and to address the other question if Prop 8's passage merited the case. Randy, as one who follows California politics, has to know this. It's just that he knows that the vast majority of California residences don't know the nuances of the matter, so rather than pass off accurate information, he is deliberately muddying the issue.
So again, let us show this picture from earlier:
This is what wants to stand in the way of a fair court battle, representing the masses who voted against our lives and loves. People better wise us before the war comes even closer to their homes!
The California Constitution Requires That Proposition 8 Stands [Standard Newswire]
Here is an interesting read. It is long and asks the question is prop 8 and amendment or a revision?
I find it interesting that this Mormon webpage poses this scenario:
"Suppose a majority of the people decided that blacks were not taking the responsibilities of marriage very seriously, exhibited by what the majority regarded as high illegitimacy rates, high divorce rates, and rampant cohabitation and promiscuity, and decided to alter the state constitution to deny to blacks, and blacks alone, the fundamental right to marry? Again putting aside the invalidity of such a change under the federal constitution, would the change be an "amendment" or a "revision" under the California constitution?"
I guess the Mormons not only despise the gays but the blacks too.
Posted by: Shaun | Nov 17, 2008 1:42:25 PM
"The Court disagreed that Prop. 8 is 'a substantial alteration of the entire constitution.'"
Wow, that is such total and complete bullshit. The Court refused to hear the motion *WITHOUT COMMENT*, which means that the ONLY opinion that the judges made clear was that they felt it was not the right time to address that claim.
Is this man trained in law or spin?
Posted by: zortnac | Nov 17, 2008 1:53:03 PM
"Is this man trained in law or spin?"
But that's just the thing, zortnac: On their side, neither your training nor your intellect matter. All take back seat to the agreed-upon "pro-family" message. I find it to be one of the most annoying things about their movement. You know some of them are really quite bright and HAVE TO SEE the flaws. But since they know that there are so many people out there who they can dupe with spin, they will never publicly stray from their deception.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 17, 2008 2:03:18 PM
True, it is less a question of intelligence and more a question of integrity, or lack thereof. They want to win at all costs, and small easy-to-fly-under-the-radar lies about what the Court did and did *not* say are probably the easiest to manage.
Posted by: zortnac | Nov 17, 2008 4:35:21 PM
I think on top of the protests some newspaper space in California should be bought [people still read them don't they?] to explain our positions. And a lot of it could be copy from your blog and that of Towleroad, Box Turtle Bulletin, Pam's House Blend, and some others.
Posted by: Lynn David | Nov 17, 2008 7:47:43 PMcomments powered by Disqus